This portal was correctly removed for being inaccessible to the public. This is a private residence community behind a gate that not everyone has access to. A player who benefits from the location of this wayspot came on here with a reinstatement request and conveniently left out those facts. From the Wayfarer rejection criteria article 3:
Abusive location
Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group. Or location edits that attempt to move the Wayspot away from the object with which it’s associated (for example, moving the Wayspot to a different city/country or moving it to a more convenient location).
Please permanently remove this wayspot.
Edit: Please stop incorrectly flagging this topic as inappropriate. This is a good faith request for removal. This isn’t reddit.
Just because a residential community is not accessible to everyone, does not make Wayspots in the area ineligible. The area appears to be a complex of houseboats. Is that correct? If it is, it’s not a single-family private residence and should be treated like an apartment complex. While the complex might limit access to residents and guests of residents only, it is still accessible by members of the public.
Is the pin placement incorrect? If not then I don’t think this applies for the reason I stated above. From the pictures provided in the thread you referenced: Poi removed incorrectly it appears to be outside the office for the complex of house-boats.
The “collective group” would be the people who live there, and as the location is publically accessible (at least to those who live there) Niantic has said on past occasions that these locations are eligible. Similar to gated communities, or amusement parks/water parks where you need a ticket to access it.
Niantic can weigh in, however I would venture to say that given they restored the Wayspot once I’d imagine it’ll stay. Then again, they also removed it once so…
The wayspot is behind a gate with a passcode. It is not accessible to the public. I can happily provide proof of that when my travels take me near there again.
It is accessible to the community who has the passcode, which makes it eligible. Way spots that exist in common areas for restricted access communities are permitted.
This wayspot is behind a 7000 volt electrified fence with no trespassing signs. All arguments in favor are invalid. The agents arguing in favor of this portal wish to continue abusing it.
Well, don’t try to climb over the fence and its voltage is irrelevant.
Get the pin to get inside using legitimate methods and you can access that wayspot.
SFPR doesn’t apply here. This is no different to military facilities or college campuses. General public can’t just walk in, but plenty of legitimate people can.
Be warned that you are maliciously reporting invalid wayspots and that’s considered abuse, which can result in temporary or permanent ban.
Fair play should not be the burden of the side that isn’t being treated fairly.
This is not the same as military-base portals. There are millions of military members of which thousands are ingress agents. Both sides have roughly equal chances of having an agent that has access.
This is a lot of 177 houseboats of which we know the only agents are on the blue team and control exclusive access to this location. Both sides do not have equal access opportunities.
“Aquire the passcode by legal means” translation: Buy a houseboat or request access from the blue team that controls exclusive access and invites their teammates in but never the other team.
In response to the whole topic which we have reviewed.
First everyone in the community is expected to remain respectful of each other.
The wayspot has had a decision by the Wayfarer Team.
The only case put forward here was about limited access.
Limited access is not a reason to remove a wayspot.
There is no requirement that everyone has to be able to access every wayspot.
If there is new, different evidence then it can be considered, but please do not try to simply reiterate the same invalid argument.
Thanks for the appeal, @alyriae We took another look at the Wayspots in question and decided that they do not meet our criteria for removal at this time.